Should a pharmacist (not a public hospital) have the right to refuse service based on their beliefs?

trexntx wrote:If somebody were to refuse to serve a person in a restaurant simply because they were obese they better be willing to be sued. That is discrimination.

Another problem I feel exists today. People can sue for something way too easily. My uncle happens to be a lawyer, and bluntly told me that you can punch someone, hurt your hand in the progress, and then stand a good chance of winning if you choose to sue.

Then, of course, the question becomes "whose moral and ethical conduct do we go by?" Too many beliefs out there to just go with one. Someone is going to be "wronged". Best to just leave the idea of religion out of it entirely, and go with the original intent which is to not give out bad or fake 'scripts. Meaning it is morally and ethically wrong to hand out the wrong meds, or to hand out meds based on a bogus 'script. If it's legitimate, then there is no reason to not fill the prescription.

Tolemac wrote: The bartender doesn't want to see you or anyone else get killed. The morning after pills do not kill the people taking them nor anyone they come in contact with.

In theory, the pills do kill what that particular pharmacist considers to be a person. That is their purpose.

I feel that it's correct that this particular Target shoud have to dispense the pills, because of their contract with the health center to supply for them during business hours. Which is why I said they should reconsider the contract. As a private business though, no, they don't have to serve a controlled substance.

A hamburger is not a controlled substance.
A gun store can refuse to sell you a firearm if they think you're dangerous. It is a controlled item. They may not want to be the one in your way if this is the case though...

Other than that, the corporatation decided to leave the dispensing up to the pharmacists. They realized that there may be a profit loss. They realized there would be trouble, but felt that the pharmacists should be allowed to make this decision to refute service.

These people know very well how drugs react with the molecules and pathways of organisms on a level much deeper than medical doctors do. Medical doctors need to focus on diagnosis and prognoses. They have to be able to treat a broad range of malaises and focus on more than the prescriptions.

Pharmacists NEED the right to refuse dispersal of drugs. For one, they may know of controvercial drugs and have moral obligations against dispensing it. This would include not just the MAP but things that were once legal like pfen-pfen and ephedra.

Most importantly, they need this right in order to correct for any interactions between drugs that the doctor failed to notice. It's a second checkpoint so that you don't get drugs that will interact negatively in your system.

Keep in mind that pharmacists ARE doctors, in that they went to four extra years of schooling after their bachelors just like medical doctors do.

Yes, they have to go through extra schooling, but they do not have to go through the schooling that doctors go through. You cannot compare the two.

Pharmacists NEED the right to refuse dispersal of drugs

Only in the instance of drug interaction, as you said, that the doctor may not be aware of. Lots of people have more than one doctor, especially to get 'scripts filled, and the pharmacist may see that the interaction would be harmful. That said, show me the studies showing the harmful drug interactions of the MAP. Other than that, if they have a legitimate prescription, there is no reason not to fill it. It's their job. If they will not do their job, then they need to work in another field.

here in our place when you have a valid prescription, no one can stop you from buying one. having it an abortion pill or what kind of drug it is...

but i personally think that pharmacists has a right or control of who and when they want to sell there medicines, especially there employers gave them the right to decide.. "its up to them"...

they have there "own reasons", for example im about to sell my car and i have the right to decide whom to sell it by knowing the buyers attitude/background.. and since its my first car i dont want it to be with someone who will just use it for like garage car or something that would make it "trash"..

i know i have no right because they already bought it but for someone like me id like it to be with someone who i know will use it and take care of it just like i do...

krung krung wrote:here in our place when you have a valid prescription, no one can stop you from buying one. having it an abortion pill or what kind of drug it is...

but i personally think that pharmacists has a right or control of who and when they want to sell there medicines, especially there employers gave them the right to decide.. "its up to them"...

they have there "own reasons", for example im about to sell my car and i have the right to decide whom to sell it by knowing the buyers attitude/background.. and since its my first car i dont want it to be with someone who will just use it for like garage car or something that would make it "trash"..

i know i have no right because they already bought it but for someone like me id like it to be with someone who i know will use it and take care of it just like i do...

So basically they can play God.

Say for instance they are the only pharmacy in a small town and a raped girl's only opportunity to terminate a possible pregnancy is if she takes this pill. Denying her the pill is making a decision only she has the right to make. Selling her the pill isn't the same thing as forcing it down her throat. She has to make the conscious decision to take it.